I’m
looking at Bill C-47, the proposed Human Reproductive and Genetic
Technologies Act. Why is the government bothering with this, I
wonder?
I don’t recall seeing surrogacy contracts or sperm sales among the
pressing
issues that Canadian voters mention when polled about their
concerns.

The
bill says it has three goals: to protect the health and safety of
Canadians, to ensure the "appropriate treatment" of human reproductive
materials outside the body, and to protect the dignity of all persons,
especially women and children. Then there’s a list of about a
dozen
prohibited activities.

What’s
missing, in both the bill and Health Canada’s explanatory press
release,
and in all the material I’ve seen from the Royal Commission on New
Reproductive
Technologies, is any rational explanation of how the declared goals tie
in to the prohibited practices. It’s as though the practices
absorb
their wickedness by osmosis, simply by being mentioned in the same
document
as the accusations against them. The government has announced
that
they’re bad, therefore they’re bad. QED.

For
example, how does the sale of sperm—as opposed to unpaid sperm
donations—jeopardize
anyone’s health or safety, or lead to inappropriate treatment of
tissue,
or violate anyone’s dignity? Liability-conscious labs will still
want to screen semen for disease. They’ll still store it the same
way. And I understand that ejaculating into a test tube while the
lab technician waits outside the door is found by most sperm donors to
be a tad undignified, pay or no pay.

The
only serious violation of dignity would arise from passing the
bill—from
telling adult citizens they cannot engage in freely negotiated,
voluntary
contracts. The state is saying that both buyers and sellers of
sperm
are like infants, like mental incompetents—incapable of determining
what’s
in their own best interest. Big Brother knows best. Now
there’s
a genuine indignity for you.

There
are other non-sequiturs in this legislation; for example, the ban
on
"medical procedures" aimed at sex selection of children. There
are
already books on the market—not to mention several Internet
sites--telling
couples about do-it-yourself techniques they can try in order to alter
their chances of conceiving boys or girls. Presumably, these
techniques
will remain legal. Even this Liberal government, interventionist
as it is, doesn’t have the stomach to hire Sex Police to ensure that
couples
make love equally before and after ovulation, or that women don’t
douche
with baking soda or vinegar. But in that case, why ban the
medical
procedures? Both sets of techniques are unreliable.

Leftist
feminists allege sex selection will lead in some unspecified way to the
"devaluation" of women. Too bad they don’t understand basic
economics. They’ve got it exactly backwards. Even if
they’re
correct in their silly hypothesis that Canadian couples will
disproportionately
choose to produce boys (an assumption that the Royal Commission admits
is unsupported by the evidence), they’re wrong about the effect it
would
have on women’s social status. Plentiful resources generally
command
low values; scarce resources, high.

Besides,
if the next generation of Canadians is disproportionately male, women
will
have the upper hand in selecting a mate. By choosing judiciously,
women might well help breed out or train out such undesirable
behaviours
as violence or alcoholism. Shouldn’t that make feminists happy?

The
most disturbing rhetoric from Health Canada is its vilification of all
things commercial. We can’t "commercialize reproduction," the
press
release says. It would be "contrary to the principles of human
dignity,
respect for life and protection of the vulnerable."

The
notion that money taints every human activity with depravity dates all
the way back to antiquity. It’s balderdash. Money is one of
mankind’s
greatest inventions—as necessary and beneficial to civilized life as
the
wheel.

Even
those who subscribe to the Marxist ideal, "from each according to his
ability,
to each according to his need," find money to be a useful tool.
It
can be broken down into tiny units, so that when a cattle rancher and a
baker each want to give according to their abilities and take according
to their needs, the rancher doesn’t end up giving a whole cow for a
loaf
of bread.

Money
also serves as a means of storing value, permitting people to schedule
their transactions more conveniently. The rancher can sell his cattle
weeks
before his shopping spree in town. He doesn’t have to drive the
herd
along with him to barter as he goes from store to store.

And
money solves the problem of having to find someone whose abilities and
needs coincide inversely with yours. The rancher can still get
bread
from the baker even if the baker is a vegetarian.

So
what’s the problem if a woman wants to rent out her uterus for 9
months?
Why is that less dignified than babysitting someone’s child after it
has
been born? She’s simply trading her time and discomfort for other
things she wants more—perhaps something for her own children.
Money
is merely an intermediate device that lets her fulfill her other
goals.

There
was a time when acting on stage and wearing dresses above the ankle
were
considered grossly undignified. That nonsense passed, and these
restrictions
on reproductive freedom will, too. Meanwhile, Canadians who want
to exercise their reproductive rights will have to do it in California.